Monday, February 06, 2012

Journey Into The Unknown, part 10

This journey has been “into the unknown” because when we felt it necessary to leave our former church home, we didn’t know where the Lord would lead us. Not being an active church member is not an option. So, we have sought the Lord’s leadership in finding a place where we could be at home and become involved.

Sunday’s experience was a confirmation that the place we’ve been considering is where we will join.

In part 6 of this Journey blog, I outlined the 5 things I was looking for in a church. This one meets all those criteria—it just doesn’t have the name Baptist attached to it.

The music was superb, and sitting close to the choir and singing the hymns in a sanctuary that has great acoustics for music literally gave me goose bumps. It is definitely theThe Language of Musicthat speaks to me.

Through the sermon, the Lord spoke to me about what He expects of me. I took notes, and notice that someone in front of me was taking notes as well. I like exegetical sermons. They provide a superb opportunity to dig into the scripture and understand what God said to His people then and to us now.

Then, in the Sunday School hour, we attended the first of five in a series of their new member classes. Looking over the material that will be covered, I am excited to become a member of a church where both the church’s doctrines and its openness about salvation by grace through faith are openly taught.

If someone who doesn’t believe the core doctrines of Christianity and who has never had a time when they personally accepted Jesus as Savior and Lord goes through these classes, they will either have a conversion experience or they will decide this church is not for them.

One resource that is used in the class is “Steps To Peace With God” from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The four steps outlined in this booklet are similar to “The 4 Spiritual Laws” that Campus Crusade for Christ uses. The first “law” or “step” is “God loves you and wants you to experience peace and life—abundant and eternal.”  That is a critical place to start sharing the Gospel, but it’s only one of four steps.

What frustrated me in another church was that they wanted to stop there—just tell people that God loves them—leaving out everything about the need for grace (because we are sinners) and God’s provision of grace (the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ), and the need to appropriate that grace (by personally accepting the gift God offers in Jesus).

Grace is free, but costly (just ask Bonhoeffer—oh sorry, you can’t ask him. He was martyred for his faith.)

To tell people that all that is needed is love and that to be a Christian is just to “follow Jesus” does people a disservice. They need to hear the truth of the gospel, including the parts where repentance, accepting Christ as Savior, and committing one’s life to Christ are required.

Cherry Creek Presbyterian Church meets the 5 requirements I posted in part 6 of this series. We’ll gladly worship and serve with them in the Lord’s Kingdom.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Journey Into The Unknown, part 9

The “Unknown” is becoming known—at least it appears that way unless the Lord intervenes and leads elsewhere.  The service at Cherry Creek Presbyterian Church (CCPC) this morning was a confirmation that we seem to be on the right path. You notice the tentative nature of that statement. This is, so far, not one of those instances in which the Lord plainly reveals His will for us. We'll start the church's series of new member classes on February 5th, and after that make the final decision.

Having had a very good conversation with the Senior Pastor, and getting our questions satisfactorily answered, the major impediment to our joining the church is that of denominational identity. I never imagined that I would be a member of anything but a Baptist church.  
Maybe I’ll end up something like what one of my former students said about herself.  She grew up a Methodist. She was marrying a Baptist, and she joined his church and was baptized according to the Baptist tradition. Afterwards she was firm in saying to me, “I just want you to know that I’m not a Baptist, I’m just a wet Methodist”.   I may become a member of a Presbyterian church, but will I ever be anything but a Baptist at heart? That part of the journey is yet to be revealed.
Still, I do appreciate what the Pastor said about the difference between their “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines. I heartily concur with all of their “essentials”. I can live with some difference of opinion on their “non-essentials”. In part 6 of this Journey, I mentioned five things I’m looking for in our next church home. One of them was “a place where everyone knows your name”, that is, a Christian family. And in part 8, I said this is a place where we already have some friends. That makes a big difference. 
It’s hard to make new “old friends”, so to go to a church where we already have some makes losing the weekly contact with the friends we made at our previous church a little easier. We still want to keep the bonds of friendship strong with our friends at our previous church; but we are also not naïve. We know we will have to be intentional about keeping them alive. Thankfully, some of those friends are also reaching out to us to keep our relationships strong.
In the end, though, all of the factors in post #6 will influence our decision on joining a church, not just friendships. If friendships were the only factor, we would not have started on this journey.
Interestingly, at least to me, as I look back at the factors listed in post #6, none of them were specific to a certain denomination. Much like many others I've come to know over the years, denominational labels are becoming less important to me. I've known genuine Christians from every Christian denomination over the years.
The core Christian doctrines are critical for me: what they call the "essentials" at CCPC. I've come to see that the place where some churches get off the track generally centers on what they teach about Jesus Christ.
If a church affirms the traditional doctrines about Jesus (as in the classic creeds of the church), other doctrines will usually fall in line. If a church denies certain core teachings about Jesus (such as His divinity or His bodily resurrection), other core doctrines fall apart as well.
Does that sound strange--that a "Christian" church will get off track concerning their teachings about Jesus? It sounded strange to me too when I experienced just that phenomenon. When talking about Jesus only as a teacher, a model for life, and as one we should "follow" and never talking about Him as "Savior" is the norm, one wonders what it is about that Jesus that one would worship.
It is clear from the Scriptures (see especially I Corinthians 15) that without a conviction that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, one's faith is in vain. As both Lindsey and I have often said, "If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, we might as well just be a member of some club like Rotary that does good deeds but doesn't require much else of you. Or, why not just get a tee time on Sunday morning instead of wasting it in a meaningless church service.
But if Jesus' resurrection was real...well, that makes giving Him my life the most meaningful thing I can do. That is exactly what I have done. I've given my life to Jesus Christ, and He has become my Savior and my Lord. That is what has given my life purpose, whether as a sailor, a student, a pastor, a Campus Minister, or even as a Realtor.
So, one thing is sure--the church which we will join will have very clear, traditional, Christian teachings about the core doctrines, and especially those about Jesus Christ. More to come about this after we've taken the classes.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Journey Into The Unknown, part 8

One never knows where a journey might take him, especially when the Lord is setting the itinerary. I still don't know whether the place we visited today will be an overnight stay, a short vacation, or a longer stop on the road to that unknown country.

It's now been four weeks since we started on this journey. Last week Lindsey and I met with the pastor of the church we likely will join--that longer stop mentioned above. It appears to meet the criteria I listed in post #6.

One of the positives of this church is that we already have friends there, and they have enthusiastically encouraged us to come and join them. That's one of the clues that a business, an organization, or a church is doing something right--do its customers or members talk about it in such a way that others start to think it might be the right place for them?

Before accepting someone as a member, this church requires attendance at a new members' class, agreement with the church's essential doctrines (while giving some latitude on "non-essential" doctrines: those that are important but not essential for salvation), and giving one's personal testimony to one of the elders of the church. Once we've been through the class and have made a decision, I'll post the name of the church.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Journey Into The Unknown part 7

In my last post I wrote about what I'm looking for in a church. A pastor friend who saw it commented that my list would help anyone looking for a church. I hope so. That's why I write.

Another friend commented on his own journey--he and his family are also looking for a new church. Something I wrote him is also appropriate here: "...once having made the hardest part of the journey (deciding to leave a church) the rest of the journey is easy by comparison." It's still hard to find a church that fits. There are so many variables that to have them all fit together simultaneously is improbable. That's why it is important to not expect the "perfect church".

The hardest part, though, really is making the decision to leave. Others can't completely understand why their friend is leaving. Some relationships are broken. Some are strained. And some tend to just wither away without the regular weekly face-to-face contact. You know, "absence makes the heart grow fonder--of somebody else". Happily, though, some relationships endure. Typically they endure because the relationship is so important to both parties that they work at keeping it going.

Today we went to a new church. My experience there today was very encouraging. One thing I heard reminded me of something a member of the class I used to teach said when asking if I would be interested in teaching that class: "I want a teacher who knows more about the Bible than I do." (That was always a challenge because he is very knowledgeable about the Bible.) 

In the pastor's sermon this morning, I heard something that I didn't know. He was talking about the passage in Matthew 22: 1-14 where the king invited guests to a wedding banquet for his son. One of the invited guests was rebuked and cast out because he didn't have on "wedding clothes". The new thing I learned (and that opened up a whole new meaning for the passage) is that in that culture, it would be the host's responsibility to supply "wedding clothes" for guests who didn't have them. [The pastor displayed a garment provided to him for a wedding in Africa that he had been invited to.]

The reason a guest would not have on the appropriate wedding clothes was because he chose not to wear what had been provided by the host. Everyone was invited ("both good and bad'). Whether because of pride or just the desire to come on his own terms, exclusion from the banquet was because he refused what was provided, not because of the host's ungraciousness.

The point: we are to invite everyone to participate in the kingdom, and welcome everyone to the church. If they refuse to change and meet the Lord's standards (and thus be voluntarily excluded), that's their choice. We will have done our part to be obedient, and the Lord will have done His part in making the way possible.

Its relevance for our journey? This appears to be a church that reaches out to everyone and welcomes all who come, but recognizes that some people won't come to Christ or His church because they don't want to change. And, to come to the Lord's wedding banquet, righteous wedding clothes are required.

Journey Into The Unknown part 6

It's Christmas Eve.  An early gift book that I started reading last night helps bring this whole journey thing into perspective. It is "The Triumph of Christianity, How the Jesus Movement Became the World's Largest Religion", by Rodney Stark.

Just having read a couple of chapters, I can't give a good review of the book yet. I can say, though, that the church that grew from Jesus' small band of disciples into a movement led by those who saw him alive after his crucifixion and resurrection (see I Corinthians 15: 3-8) has been a great force for good in the world, in spite of some black marks. (I can also see in the book that a lot of myths about some of those black marks need exposure to the light of truth).

In any event, the Church, while contributing much to the world, has not been perfect. Somehow, I think Jesus knew that a gathering of disciples that included a traitor, a tax collector, squabbling brothers, and a hot-headed fisherman as its leader would not be perfect.

Now that we are looking for a new local church home, we acknowledge that there is also no such thing as a perfect local church. If there were one, that perfection would cease as soon as I joined it. Still, when looking for a church home, people tend to look for a congregation and a ministry that is as close to perfect for them as possible. We look for something where we are a good fit, something which as much as possible is an ideal church for us.
What I'm looking for on this journey is:
  • A church whose focus is on a combination of the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. We are to love God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12:29-31), and that love should also be great enough to help our neighbors become disciples of our resurrected Lord and Savior (Matthew 28: 18-20). In other words, whatever ministries a church has to help others should include the goal of leading them to find their own Savior and Lord in Jesus Christ.
  • A place where Lindsey and I can both exercise our spiritual gifts. (See I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 for partial lists of how the Lord equips everyone with spiritual gifts for the benefit of the whole Body.) Both of us want to be full members of the church we belong to, and that involves more than just attending, listening, and giving.
  • A place where theologically we are in sync with the rest of the church. Swimming against the stream may make one stronger; but after a while it also makes one weary.
  • A place where we speak the same "language of music". For those our age, it's not that easy to find a place with music that "speaks to us"--that is, music that blends traditional hymns and more contemporary songs that will help us worship the Lord as we desire. For more about this concept of "The Language of Music", click on the link to see what I wrote about it more than 10 years ago. The short version is, we need to hear sermons in a spoken language we understand, and we also need to hear and sing music in a musical language that speaks to us personally.
  • As much as possible, a place "where everybody knows your name", to borrow a phrase from a song. And as the song implies and the TV show "Cheers" that had the song as its theme showed, "knowing everybody's name" means that it's a place where people care about each other. So, we're back to the first item on this list of what I'm looking for on this journey: love, true friendship, a Christian family.
Tomorrow we take our first step on this part of the journey--finding a new church. As always, the Lord who gave us the Great Commission said "I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Thanks be to God!

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Journey Into The Unknown part 5

In my second post of this series (on December 6, 2011) I mentioned the journey I began after the funding for my job was gone. That journey involved a change in careers, not just a change to a new job of the same kind. It was a difficult transition, as you might imagine, because much of one’s identity is bound up in answer to the question, “What do you do?”

We seek to get to know someone by asking about their family, but more often by asking about their work. For 19 years my answer to that question was “I am a minister”. Sometimes I was more specific, “Pastor, Campus Minister, etc. Suddenly I was thrust into a position where I was no longer in “full-time ministry”. That is, I wasn’t being paid to work for a church or denomination. Over time I would answer, “I am a Realtor”, but I still retained the expectation that at some future date the Lord would call me back into “the ministry”.

After several years, when I admitted that the Lord had put me in the work I was currently doing, and that He was probably not going to lead me back to work for a church, I borrowed a phrase from Caesar’s Gallic Wars which I remembered from high school Latin: “alea jacta est” (the die—singular for dice--is cast). When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River from Gaul (France) into Italy to return to Rome in defiance of orders to stay away, he knew there was no going back.

That’s how it was for me when I finally used that phrase to settle the fact that my future was in real estate (with voluntary or bi-vocational ministry to fulfill my calling) and not in full-time Christian ministerial positions. The dice had been cast. The decision had been made. Look to the future, not to the past.

I heard it years ago on TV, and I guess it’s a fairly common truism, “There’s no future in looking back”. That’s what I ultimately meant my adopting the phrase from Julius Caesar as my own motto. It helped me settle in and do the work I needed to do to be successful in real estate for the next 20 plus years.

It is applicable now, too. As we begin the search for a new church home, Lindsey and I are looking toward the future, not looking back. We still want to keep friendships strong, and in some ways the past always puts its stamp on future decisions; but our focus is on what we want our next church to be like.

That will come in the next post.


Thursday, December 15, 2011

Journey Into The Unknown part 4

As more people hear that I am leaving my current church, some of them have sent messsages encouraging me--most just encouraging me on my journey, a few encouraging me to reconsider my decision to leave. The latter would like to see me and other conservatives stay and try to change things from the inside.

A friend I had lunch with today shared some germane advice his father gave him years ago about staying in a place to make a change from the inside: "To make a change in the status quo, there has to already be a climate of change or you have to create one."  The status quo in the church was just changed to something I don't agree with; and since the vote was so lopsided, there is not a climate to change it back to the status quo ante.  And, it's not my place to try to create one.

I do appreciate those who have encouraged me to stay. I value their friendship and I respect their decision to stay and work from the inside.

I also appreciate those who have encouraged me as I go, wishing me well and understanding that each person's decision is personal. I know some of the reasons that others have who are staying even though they agree with me on the issues. There aren't any simple choices here. Each person's decision is personal.

Yesterday was my last time to meet with the adult Sunday School class I've been teaching. It was not easy to leave them. I pray they will find just the right teacher for that class. Whoever it is, I know the class will be supportive and will help the teacher to grow--they've done that for me, and I thank God for them all.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Journey into the Unknown, part 3

This morning was my next-to-last time with the adult Sunday School class I’ve taught since September, 2010. They are a great class—inquisitive, affirming, and they like to participate in the discussion. I told the class this morning that next Sunday would be my last day with them.

It was serendipitous that the lesson for today was from Genesis 12 and 15 (God telling Abram to set out on a journey to “the land I will show you” and that he and Sarai, both beyond normal child-bearing age, would have a son). This lesson also followed a summer forum on faith in Hebrews 11 that I co-taught last August. I was able to connect the passages and say that when we step out in faith under God’s guidance, we can know that He will be with us on that journey.

Interestingly, Abram was a human being like you and me. He messed up badly by taking things into his own hands after God had promised to bless him. The fact that he obeyed God initially and set out on the journey, and that he “believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness” regarding the birth of a son, doesn’t negate his sin of not trusting that God would be with him along the journey.

His faith, like mine sometimes, was not always rock solid. Still, God blessed him when he obeyed, and granted him grace when he strayed. In saying that I am, like Abram, starting a journey into the unknown, I’m not claiming any special status or insight. I’m just doing what I believe the Lord is leading me to do at this time. May the Lord be gracious when I also blow it.

I had to tell my class why I was leaving. They knew that the vote to pass the “inclusion statement” last Sunday was connected; but I didn’t want them to think that I was leaving just because I was “unreasonably afraid of homosexuals” (the literal mean of “homophobic”—the pejorative term made up to demean those who disagree with the pro-gay agenda).

Again, the statement adopted by my church is “Calvary welcomes and affirms all people as children of God from every cultural and religious background, sexual orientation, family composition, physical and mental ability, economic means, race, age and gender."

As I have told several people, if the two words, “and affirms” were removed from the original statement (which also didn’t have the words “as children of God”), I could have voted yes and stayed. I believe we are to welcome and extend God's love to everyone. That doesn't mean to have to affirm them if that means we have to agree that their behavior is OK with us and we cannot say anything about that behavior.

Contrary to what has been taught at the church lately, I do believe the Bible classifies homosexual behavior as sin. At the very least, there is no place in the Bible where homosexual activity is praised, spoken of positively, or “affirmed”.

So, if I am accused of being intolerant or unloving because I believe the traditional interpretation of the Bible is God’s word on the matter, then I’ll admit my mea culpa. I do wonder though, why those who would thus judge me as unloving and judgmental don’t see that their own judgment of me is unloving and judgmental.

I stated that I told my class why I was leaving the church. Here are the primary reasons:

(1) I cannot “affirm” behavior the Bible classifies as sin. My remaining there after the church voted to affirm that behavior would be a tacit endorsement of the statement.

(2) I cannot endorse or accept what I see as revisionist interpretations of Scripture—interpretations based more on P.C. reactions to cultural changes than on solid hermeneutics.

(3) Since I started as their teacher, my goal has been three-fold: to teach the Bible; to teach how to study and interpret the Bible (hermeneutics); and to seek to apply the Bible’s teachings to life today. That’s why I can’t stand by silently when faced with interpretations that “pull us from the future” and in the process throw overboard “the faith that was once for all entrusted to…(us)”.

(4) I have been swimming against the stream too long. I am conservative and traditional (small "o” orthodox) in my theology. The direction of the church’s flow is not one I want to struggle against anymore, and I can’t just go with the flow.

(5) And, there are some other reasons that I’ll have to get to later. For now, it was important for the class to know that although the homosexual agenda issue is there, much more than that is involved.

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Journey Into The Unknown, part 2

In my last post I said that I'm starting on a journey into the unknown. It's not quite like Star Trek. It's not a place where I really haven't gone before. A number of times in my life, I've made a decision that led to changes I hadn't anticipated.

A few times the decisions have been made by others, and I've just had to respond to the situation as best I could. In 1985 I was the Director of Metro Baptist Campus Ministries in Denver. Then the organization that employed me ran out of money and eliminated my job, along with several others. I hadn't expected that. I was unprepared for a job hunt. I just said to the Lord, I don't know what you have in store for me, so I'll just have to let the search for a job be the way You reveal Your will to me.

It didn't turn out anything like I even imagined. Instead of leading me to another full-time ministry position, the Lord closed all those doors that I thought were open and He led me into real estate sales. It has turned out to be a way to support my family and to use the ministry gifts He gave me as well.

I am, in effect, practicing what I preached to college students from 1970 to 1985: "the Lord doesn't care where you get your check, every one of us is supposed to be a minister." I've been able to preach, teach, counsel, and be involved in a variety of ministries for which I haven't been paid. I often tell folks who ask about my background that Paul was a tentmaker to support his missionary work. I don't make tents, I just sell them (or houses, at least).

The situation which has put me on this journey is another of those times when I’ve had to respond to a decision made by others. This time it is related to my church, not my job. The church I’ve been a member of for the past 8 years voted last Sunday on a “statement of inclusion” (see below*). At a later point in this series I’ll address that statement in more detail. For now, I just want to say this:



(1) On the surface, who could object to a statement which is designed to show that the church “welcomes and affirms all people as children of God…” and then goes on to name 10 different groups which are to be included? It almost sounds churlish to object to that. Yet I do object to the statement.


(2) But my objection is not just with the statement. It’s also not just with the fact that the only reason for initiating the statement was to show how welcoming and affirming the church is to one specific group (the “LGBTQ Community”).


(3) I do have problems with the statement. But even more, I have problems with the interpretations of Scripture that were given to support the statement—interpretations that differ considerably from what Christians have taught for two millennia. I am, for better or worse, more conservative and traditional than the majority of the church.


(4) When the church voted by a 74% to 26% margin to adopt the statement, I could only conclude that I am not a good fit there. As part of the 26% minority, I seriously disagree with the direction the church is going. And, since my continued presence would not change that direction, it is better that I leave.


I don’t know where I will go. It is indeed a journey into the unknown. I do know that I need to step out in faith like Abraham.

“By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.” Hebrews 11:8 (NIV)

What will come of it, only God knows. I do expect that just as in 1985, the Lord will open a door and enable me to use the ministry gifts He gave me. I just need to be obedient to what I understand to be the Lord’s will for my life.

* "Calvary welcomes and affirms all people as children of God from every cultural and religious background, sexual orientation, family composition, physical and mental ability, economic means, race, age and gender."



Sunday, December 04, 2011

Journey Into The Unknown

Next week in the adult Sunday School class I've been teaching we will look at Genesis 12 in which God said to Abram (later called Abraham) "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you."

We don't see all the dialogue that went on between God and Abram, and we don't see what went on in Abram's mind. We just see that at 75 years old he obeyed God and left for that unknown land.

I find myself in a situation similar to that which Abram faced. I am being led away from one place where I've been for over 8 years, and I don't yet know where this journey will take me. I only know that the Lord will not just tell me where to go; He will be with me on this journey into the unknown.

This space will once more provide a way for me to chronicle what I experience en route. Perhaps it will inspire some others to take a step of faith in their own life journeys.

In the next post--what prompted this new adventure.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

“Portraits of Faith” Forum Series

A couple of months ago I was asked if I would be interested in leading a “Summer Forum” study on Hebrews 11 with a fellow member, David Beaty. The tentative title was “Portraits of Faith”. It turned out to be a 5-week study, so it expanded a bit over what I had originally thought it would be.

Dave and I started meeting weekly, and over the past 10 weeks we have had a blast getting to know each other and discussing what we would do in the forums.

The study, and my relationship with Dave Beaty, has taken me to places I haven’t visited in a while. The concept of faith as trust, obedience, believing something, being trustworthy and faithful, and holding onto “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3 NIV) challenges me to examine and reaffirm my own faith.

It’s not enough to study about faith and to teach about faith. The teacher, as well as his students, must have faith himself. Hebrews 11:6 says it clearly, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

The basic meaning of “Faith” is trust—a sense of confidence in another that allows a relationship between the two parties to exist and to continue. It’s what keeps a marriage together, what develops a sense of unity to develop in an army unit or sports team, what enables those in a society to live with each other in harmony, and what keeps order in a democracy—the trust that citizens have in their leaders. It’s opposite, distrust, is of course what causes anarchy, wars, a breakdown of unit cohesiveness, and divorce.

Our faith in God, then, is more than just believing that He exists. It is a relationship with God in which we trust His promises, rely on His presence, and have confidence that He will lead us and enable us to carry out what He asks us to do—be His witnesses and ambassadors in the world to bring others into His kingdom. For Christians, “…faith is primarily the relationship we have with God through what Jesus accomplished in His death and resurrection.” (William L. Self, Holman Bible Dictionary).

It is that relationship I hope to foster in myself and the students through this study.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Good News for My Treatment

My previous post had good news (as good as it can be with a diagnosis of cancer): the cancer is limited to my prostate.  It hadn't spread.

I had to wait until yesterday to meet the radiation oncologist and get his recommendation regarding treatment.  That too was good news.

I first watched a video that explained the three primary treatments that are used in low to moderate prostate cancer: hormonal therapy, radiation seeds, and external beam radiation. 

In the clearly moderate risk category (where there is some evidence of cancer outside the prostate but not affecting lymph nodes or bone) they might employ all three treatments.

In the borderline low to moderate risk category they often use hormonal therapy and the radiation seeds.

Even though mine is considered low to moderate risk, all the factors together led the radiation oncologist to say he thinks we should treat it as low risk rather than moderate risk.  That means no hormonal therapy.  Just the radiation seeds should suffice.  Yea!!

The procedure itself is a one-time insertion of 70-80 or more seeds, performed in an outpatient surgical center.  A day or two of limited activity and I should be able to get on with life and work.  That's good news to me.  If I have to have a cancer diagnosis, I'm blessed to have one that is curable with the least amount of trauma and side effects.

As I watched the video, I realized that the 45-minute or so procedure is only part of the process, though.  There will be a couple of things done prior to the procedure and multiple visits for the next few years to follow up.  That was new information, and it surprised me a bit. But that would be so with any of the other procedures.  I'm thankful that I'll be getting a one-time radiation treatment instead of 8 weeks or so of radiation 5 days a week.

Thanks again to all who have been praying and those who have called or sent notes of support.  I appreciate all of you and thank the Lord for you.

Friday, October 22, 2010

My Prostate Cancer

I appreciate the concern expressed by so many concerning my recently diagnosed prostate cancer. Some has come personally, some by phone call, email or cards, and some on Facebook. Many have prayed for me. Thank you. This email is to honor that concern by keeping you apprised of my situation.

When my urologist called to tell me the results of the biopsy, he said it looked like we caught it early (Stage 2) and that it should be completely curable. He wanted me to get an MRI and a bone scan to confirm that it likely was limited to the prostate and hadn’t spread.


Monday I had those two tests. I had an appointment set for today for Lindsey and me to see the radiation oncologist. At this appointment we were to learn the results of the two tests and hear what kind of treatment would be recommended for my condition.


Yesterday I got a call saying we needed to postpone the appointment until next Thursday because the doctor had a meeting scheduled that he needed to attend. We didn’t want to wait until next week to get the results of the tests, so I asked for a copy of the test results to be sent to me.


It was good news—the cancer appears to be contained within the prostate. The tests didn’t show evidence of extension outside the capsule of the prostate (nothing shows in the lymph nodes, other tissue, or bone). 
Lindsey and I were able to relax some. We still have to wait until next Thursday to determine what treatment will be used, but at least we know the treatment will be limited to the prostate. Whatever the treatment, it will not start until December (so the prostate can recover from the biopsy first).


Thank you again for your concern and your prayers.

Update: The urologist's nurse just called to confirm that what I saw in the report was true. It is localized to the prostate.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Update: Solving The Illegal Immigration Puzzle

[Update: this was originally posted April 5, 2006, and Update 2 was added 8/24/10]

So much has been in the news about the illegal immigration issue, and with so many different voices, I can’t sort it all out without writing it out. So here goes.

Everyone I hear speak on the issue, whether from the anti- or pro- side, focuses on one or two factors in this very complicated issue. That’s probably because they know that on television or the radio what matters is easily digestible sound bites. If they try to cover it in all its complexity they will be ignored at best, or their position distorted at worst.

How complex is it? In just a few minutes I jotted down 15 factors related to the illegal immigration issue. There are more, I’m sure, but let’s just deal with those. Think of them as 15 pieces of a puzzle. Leave out a piece and it soon becomes evident that something important is missing. Try to argue your position using only one or two pieces, and you’ll soon be exposed as either shallow or deliberately misleading.

I’ll list the 15 factors and only briefly cover each one.

1. Security. We are less than five years after 9/11 and there are still people who want to kill us and eventually impose their ideology on us. Some them have come across our borders without a visa and some have overstayed their visa and disappeared into the shadows.

2. Border Integrity. The lines don’t show up on a satellite photo, but they are on a map for a reason. A nation (or state or city or school district) that doesn’t keep its borders well defined will eventually lose its identity. Even simpler, as a Realtor®, I am constantly trying to make sure my clients’ property lines are well-established and that there are no encroachments. A survey will show whether the fence the neighbor put up is on the boundary line or a foot into my client’s property.

3. Current Illegal Alien Population. It’s not politically correct to use the term “illegal alien” but for the sake of clarity, let’s call it what it is. The first definition of “alien” as a noun on www.dictionary.com is “An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.” And, if that noncitizen or alien entered or remained in the country contrary to the law’s requirements, they are an illegal alien.

All sorts of numbers are used for this population. I’ve heard anywhere from 10 million to 20 million. Most of the time the numbers of 10 to 12 million are used. Let’s just say “X Million” and know that it’s a lot.

The major point to be made in quoting X Million illegal aliens here is that it is impossible to conceive that all X Million will be rounded up and sent back to the country where they are citizens.

4. Burdensome Costs On Infrastructure. Citizens, by paying taxes and paying for health insurance, support schools, government services, hospitals, and medical care. Illegal aliens who also pay taxes and have health insurance also support those services; but it’s no secret that many illegal aliens aren’t paid legally and therefore don’t pay taxes (and many don’t have health insurance either). The services they use (sometimes mandated by federal or state laws) become a burdensome cost on the institutions and/or the citizens who do pay for them.

5. Impact On Wages. A complaint of unions is that the workers who will gladly take a job at low wages (because it’s better than they would get at home and because the employer knows they can’t complain) drive down wages for citizens.

6. Enforcement Of Laws. Reasonable laws must be enforced or the population will scoff at the law as a whole, and citizens will lose respect for all authority. Unreasonable laws should either be repealed or changed to protect the integrity of the legal system. [2010 Update: see the absurdity in the Obama administration's lawsuit against Arizona for that state trying to enforce federal law, while the federal government continues to ignore cities and states who have a "sanctuary" policy that thwarts federal law. Are we a country of laws, or of political whim?]

7. Businesses Who Want Workers. Some businesses say they need whatever workers come here because they have jobs which American workers shun. Or there just aren’t enough workers to fill the need.

8. Businesses Who Exploit Workers. Those who can’t complain without risking deportation are sometimes taken advantage of. Low wages, horrible living conditions, taxes withheld but not sent in to the IRS or state, long hours without overtime pay, and on and on. There are many ways to exploit the helpless.

9. Businesses Who Must Do Government’s Job. The current law requires employers to document their employees’ legal status. Employers can be fined if they don’t comply; and the mandated documentation is itself an unreimbursed cost to the employer.

10. Secure Documentation. False documents are widespread, so a business is at risk regardless of how diligent it is. It doesn’t seem difficult to get a false driver’s license, social security card, or whatever document is needed.

11. “Guest Worker” Programs. One proposed solution to the problem of filling the existing jobs with willing and legal workers. However the solution itself has its critics from many directions.

12. Unsettled Source Countries. Whether it’s a matter of poverty, corruption, dictators, or other problems, there are millions of potential illegal aliens in this hemisphere and millions more in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc.

13. Effect On Applicants For Legal Immigration. This is the “crowding in at the head of the line” problem. Two individuals want to come to the United States. One plays by the rules and spends years waiting to be admitted. The other just walks across the border. Is this justice?

14. Effect Of “Amnesty” On Others. Grant amnesty (or anything close to it) now, and it becomes an incentive for others to arrive illegally. They know that all they have to do is make it here, and eventually they too will be granted amnesty.

Right now there are X Million illegal aliens in the United States. Most of them have jobs, we’re told. The economy is growing, and they can find work. What will happen though when the economy takes a downturn or there are 2X Million or 10X Million illegal aliens here? If it’s a matter of justice and compassion to treat the X Million illegal aliens well, admit them to citizenship, and give them all the services they require, why not do the same thing for 100X Million? Surely there must be a line beyond which one must say, “No more”.

15. Compassion And Justice. As a Christian, I too want to befriend the “stranger” in our midst. I know that those in poverty and oppression will do what they think must be done to feed and protect themselves and their families. I don’t feel right about turning anyone away.

Well, there are my fifteen pieces of the puzzle. Coming up with more won’t change the nature of the problem much, so let’s go on from here.

The next question is how to prioritize them. We hear the call for a “comprehensive approach”. Some insist that we try to solve everything at the same time so there is no one-sidedness to our approach.

Sometimes, though, there are not enough resources to tackle the issue with a comprehensive approach. Reality demands that we take the steps one at a time. When that is so, responsible leaders must guide the country to avoid simplistic solutions and approach the problem rationally. Yes, that in itself is utopian and unrealistic thinking, especially when all we see are vote-seeking “leaders” being led by those with the loudest voices or harshest emotional appeals.

A good analogy is the complexity of the scene of a major disaster or accident. Emergency personnel know to set up a triage process to determine who can best benefit from their limited care resources. And when treating one injured individual, the common wisdom is to follow the ABC’s (Airway, Breathing, and Circulation). Some things must be done first to save the patient’s life.

With all these puzzle pieces, where do we start? It’s not unlike putting a jigsaw puzzle together. First you start with the border to provide a frame. From all I hear, and my own logic suggests, I believe the first step in dealing with the illegal alien problem is to stop the flow.

To stop the flow, some of the puzzle pieces will have to be put into place almost at one time to provide the border of the puzzle (border security, enforce current laws or revise them so they become enforceable, provide secure documentation, and cut off employment to those without the proper secure documentation).

Once the flow of illegal aliens has been stopped or abated, then it will be imperative to deal compassionately with those already here, and even realistically provide a way for them to eventually earn the right to full citizenship if they desire it (with all its responsibilities as well as its rights) and if they renounce their citizenship to their country of origin.

16. I hate to bring up what could be a 16th piece of the puzzle, but it is necessary to at least say that what has made American immigration work (and European immigration start to fail) is assimilation. We can’t allow the cancer of unassimilated millions gathered in cultural ghettos to grow as we’ve seen recently in Paris. The goal of immigration has to be to produce assimilated Americans, not hyphenated Americans.

UPDATE: The recent inability of the Senate to come to agreement on a proposed law, and the demonstrations in the streets by thousands who want some kind of "acceptable revision of the immigration law" has led many (including Jay Leno on The Tonight Show) to wonder how a new law will be respected any more than the current one has been. It seems to me that as a country we first have to demonstrate that we can and will enforce the laws we have and secure our borders. Only then will the word get out that America welcomes immigrants who come legally and is serious about its future.

UPDATE 2: So much has happened since 2006, yet so much is the same. Given the divisiveness of the illegal immigration issue and its return to the scene with the Obama administration suing Arizona over that state's new law, some additional pieces of the puzzle have surfaced. I'm adding four to the 15+1 in the original post.

17."Anchor Babies": The 14th Amendment, enacted to justifiable grant citizenship to newly-freed slaves (who were brought to this country by force and against their will), has been expanded by practice to include anyone born on United States soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. This has led to rich people from across the oceans paying thousands of dollars for a package deal to get the pregnant mother to the U.S. just in time for her to deliver her baby here; and it's led to thousands of women coming over the southern border to get free medical care, delivery in a U.S. hospital, financial aid while here, and the bonus of citizenship for the baby born here. The baby then becomes the "anchor" for the family to eventually come to the U.S.

18. The draw of a welfare state: In a reductio ad absurdum argument, if there are no national boundaries (as some would have it) and no restraints on people moving from one area to another, then a "community" (with no national boundaries we can't call it a "country") that offers free medical care, free retirement benefits, free welfare for those who can't or won't work will attract everyone who can get there. Soon, that "community" will exhaust its ability to help its own needy people, much less those who keep coming in.

19. Identity theft: To some, it may seem like a petty misdemeanor for an illegal alien to use someone else's Social Security number to get work. But this kind of identity theft doesn't stop there. They also use the false I.D. to get credit cards and other loans, and the person whose identity was stolen has their own credit wrecked; and thousands of dollars and hours of time are required to get their life back. A lender told me of one homebuyer who got upset because as her credit was being checked, the lender discovered the Social Security number didn't match her life. When told the number was not good, the "buyer" (an illegal alien) said, "Of course it is good. I paid $500 for it."

20. What "amnesty" of millions of immigrants, many of whom have incomes that would qualify them for the "Earned Income Tax Credit", would do: there would eventually be social upheaval when there are more people who don't pay income tax than there are who do pay income tax. One can always get the vote from John to tax Paul and then redistribute the money back to John. But then what does that do to the society as a whole when the "Pauls" of the country lose incentive to work?

Again, there are probably more pieces of the puzzle. It's enough for now to see that those who only focus on "Christian compassion" or others who only focus on "border security" have a too simplistic perspective to help move the issue to resolution. It's even worse when those with simplistic perspectives claim the moral high ground over others without the same perspective.

The issue is complex. What is needed is leadership, not political tricks to win votes. The security and the future of the United States is at stake. If this country fails, where can those seeking freedom and prosperity go?

Monday, August 02, 2010

Abraham Lincoln on the role of the State in Economic Development

In reading “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin, I’m impressed by Abraham Lincoln’s view of the government’s role in supporting economic development.

 

Economic development provided the basis, … that would allow every American “an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.” In Lincoln’s mind, the fundamental test of a democracy was its capacity to “elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all.”  A real democracy would be a meritocracy where those born in the lower ranks could rise as far as their natural talents and discipline might take them. (p. 90, 91)

 

For Lincoln, infrastructure improvements (schools, roads, railroads, waterways, etc.) were essential for a state or nation to flourish because, as Goodwin says, they “would enable thousands of farming families to emerge from the kind of poverty in which the Lincoln family had been trapped.” (p.90)

 

Economic development results when the state provides the path (literally and figuratively) for individuals and private companies to get their goods to market without unnecessary barriers and burdens. The goal is to enable the state (or town or nation) to grow by liberating people from what traps them in the station in life into which they were born.  This is best done by freeing individuals to pursue their dreams with their own energy and industry (so they can “receive a full, good, and ever increasing reward for their labors”) (p.90), not by removing incentives to escape from poverty.

 

Lincoln knew about poverty from his personal experience.  When obtaining an elected position, he didn’t argue that the state should distribute money to the poor.  Rather, the state’s role was to remove barriers that kept the poor in poverty.  His remedies were designed to help people learn to contribute and businesses better able to grow so jobs would be available.

 

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Plug The Right Hole



Obama just had the wrong hole in mide when he uttered his infamous phrase.

Monday, November 02, 2009

From PowerlineBlog.com: “Let Your Voice Be Heard”

The following excerpt is from PowerlineBlog.com

With the House of Representatives scheduled to vote on Nancy Pelosi's health care takeover bill, a watershed moment in American history is fast approaching. In this video, Congressman Mike Pence puts the battle over health care in the context of freedom and of the relationship between the individual and the state: [watch video]
Only massive public opposition has a chance to stop the federal usurpation that the Democrats are planning.

The House Republican Conference, meanwhile, has gone to the Herculean effort of tabulating the new federal boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs that would be established by the House bill--all in the name of cutting costs, of course! They add up to 111:
[see list]

After viewing the list, how would you answer these questions:
1. Where can I find the specific cost allocated to each of these items?
2. How many new Government employees will be needed to administer these items?
3. How many of these items are necessary in order to achieve the goal of reducing health costs or health insurance premiums?
4. How many of these items, if they were necessary, could be handled by existing bureaucracies instead of starting new ones?
5. Which makes more sense, 111 new programs, bureaucracies, and boards that amount to a takeover of 16% of the American economy as seen here , OR the much less radical approach described by Republican Leader John Boehner: “There is a better way. Republicans have offered solutions to lower health care costs and expand access at a cost our nation can afford. You can read about them at www.healthcare.gop.gov."

Monday, October 12, 2009

RE: "Decline is A Choice"

I often like the comments I hear from Charles Krauthammer and read his online posts whenever I can. This one in The Weekly Standard entitled "Decline Is A Choice" shows his gift of stepping back and getting a perspective that is generally missed by others. Two quotes give a window into his insights and make me think about what I must do to help America make the right choice:

"For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline--or continued ascendancy--is in our hands."

and,

"And there's the rub. For the Europeans there really is a peace dividend, because we provide the peace. They can afford social democracy without the capacity to defend themselves because they can always depend on the United States.
So why not us as well? Because what for Europe is decadence--decline, in both comfort and relative safety--is for us mere denial. Europe can eat, drink, and be merry for America protects her. But for America it's different. If we choose the life of ease, who stands guard for us?"


All of the questions now being debated in Washington (and in real America outside the beltway): Health Care, Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, Stimulus, Energy, The Economy, Jobs, Cap and Trade (or "Cap and Tax"), Education, Immigration, Marriage, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and more--they are just double-sided pieces of a puzzle in which the picture only is revealed toward the end when we see the accumulated pattern of the individual choices made on each separate question.

What can I do? Work to elect those who will stand up and decide not to decline.

What can you do? Read "Decline Is A Choice" and make your own decision.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The beauty of Federalism in the health care debate


Instead of a centralized power, our Founders established the Federal system they called the United States of America. The Federal government didn’t grant authority to the states. Rather, the individual states, being closer to the people, had the authority over everything not specifically granted to the federal government.

This setup is perfect for trying out various schemes to improve society in different states, and then importing to other states those ideas that actually work. For health care reform, one could go to Massachusetts or Minnesota to see what they have implemented—what are the benefits, what do they need to change?

James Q. Wilson, writing in the Wall Street Journal Online, (A Life in the Public Interest )talked about what happens when the Federal concept is ignored and the process is top-down instead of bottom-up. He mentioned the law of unintended consequences:

“Launch a big project and you will almost surely discover that you have created many things you did not intend to create.

This is not an argument for doing nothing, but it is one, in my view, for doing things experimentally. Try your idea out in one place and see what happens before you inflict it on the whole country.”


The bills currently being developed in Congress don’t seem to have learned from the smaller experiments in separate states; and they certainly don’t project future experiments to try out reforms in smaller markets, and then to promote those reforms for other states. Instead they are attempts to jam down unproven reforms on everyone everywhere in the country.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Being Christian In A Political Debate


I have written previously here and elsewhere about the health care (or health insurance) reform issue. I learned firsthand that stating an opinion in public can encourage debate, but it can also bring out the worst in people.

In a recent ScriptoriumDaily.com post, “7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square” John Mark Reynolds wrote “It is hard to talk to someone when you have nothing in common.”

Sometimes it is even hard, but not impossible, to talk with someone when you share some common values because of “how we prioritize values when good come into conflict.” We may “agree on the values”, but prioritize and apply them differently.

A few years back I encountered some faithful Christians with some doctrines that were radically different from mine. I was startled to conclude that they actually believe these things they are saying, but I respected them personally and I realized I needed to continue to relate to them as fellow believers. Sadly, some of them did not reach the same conclusion.

The same thing can happen with the health care debate. That brings us to one of Reynold’s suggestions: "Attacking ideas is different than attacking people". In response to one email about health care I sent which went viral, one person (who admitted that she didn’t know me) named me personally as a “Deather”. She was referring to those who seek disclosure of Barak Obama’s birth certificate and are called “Birthers” (but she didn’t refer to the “Truthers” –9/11 Conspiracy Theorists). Instead of debating the ideas presented, she attacked me.

Reynolds is right though in his 2nd suggestion: “Strong opinions encourage authentic dialogue.” It is only as people with strong convictions speak up and engage in civil debate with others of strong convictions that authentic dialogue takes place. If you strongly disagree with a policy or an idea but say nothing when others present their opinions, there is no dialogue. The recent town hall meetings may have been boisterous (and some participants may have gone over the line at times), but they had the desired effect of getting both sides of the issue before the public and their elected officials.

I encourage you to read the entire article
7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square.

In a previous post, John Mark Reynolds quoted Jim Wallis’ comment that health care is a “deeply theological issue, a Biblical issue and a moral issue”, and then replied that “Health care is such a deeply theological, Biblical, and moral issue that it cannot be trusted to the government.

Increasing government control over health care increases the number of ethical issues where government authority will have to be on one side or the other of these disputes.

Sometimes increasing state power is necessary, but it should also be done with care. When religious leaders like Jim Wallis pretend that it is obvious that government should increase its involvement in health care, they have confused the goal (universal basic care) with the means (government programs).”

Again, I encourage you to read the entire article:
Too Great a Good for Caesar: Health Care Reform .

There are some health care issues that involve ethical decisions that cannot be entrusted to politicians or bureaucrats whose decisions are politically, not morally, based.


Christians have a responsibility to speak up about moral and ethical issues and not abdicate that responsibility to others. However, we must also be Christian in the manner in which we debate. I applaud John Mark Reynolds for his helpful suggestions as to how that debate can be Christian in tone and manner.